Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Kevin Graham" <kevlds AT hotmail.com>]

Good morning Charles,

== I appreciate the fact that you recognize that all readers, exegetes if 
you will come with assumptions (what I prefer to call presoppositions). But 
I fail to see why "theological" assumptions are bad and other 
presuppositions are okay. After all the Bible is a religious document, dare 
we say a theological document.

But whose theology is being represented? That is the great battle amongst 
scholars from all Judeo-Christian faiths. Which only reinforces my point, I 
think, that setting theological confines as to what the Bible can and cannot 
say, is a bad way of approaching it.

== It seems to me that the human authors of Scripture themselves come with 
theological presuppositions. For example, in the OT the authors typically 
assume that God has a covenantal relationship with Israel.

Sure, but the Bible, it is argued, is a historical document. It must 
therefore be approached as if it is a historical document written by many 
different authors. The theological presupposition I have problems with, are 
those such as the one expressed here recently. "They demanded I call Yahweh 
a liar!" This one left em scratching my head. I gather from this that 
someone was learning something in Hebrew class that contradicted one or many 
of his theological presuppositions, and the only way he knew to express his 
dilemma was to say it required that he call God a liar.

== I would also add that all presuppositions, not just theological ones, in 
one way or the other "sets the limits as to what a scripture can and cannot 
say. For example, if one comes to the Torah with a Documentary Hypothesis 
presupposition, then the statements in Torah which lay claim to Mosaic 
authorship are discounted.

But this is discounted, first and foremost, by the fact that Deuteronomy 
presents us with Moses' obituary. So we know beyond a doubt that Moses 
didn't write this much of it, so the burden of proof rests on those who 
insist Moses wrote all of it. I this undermines "tradition" moreso than 
theology, I think. The thesis that Moses authored the entire book is also 
belied by the fact that Deuteronomy, which was miraculously (and 
conveniently I might add) "discovered" by Josiahn temple priests, and that 
it contradicts many of the things taught in subsequent books of Moses, and 
happens to support teh reforming ideas of Josiah. It isn't some devious 
atheistic plot to throw a wrench into the traditional (mis)understanding of 
the OT authorship. I am a Christian. I can accept the Bible for what it is. 
It doesn't hinder my theology in the slightest to know that tradition 
sometimes gets it wrong.

== By the way, since you appeal to the OT view of God then you might note 
how many times the words "Thus says the Lord" the Word of the Lord," etc. 
appear. Does this not reflect a presupposition and understanding of the text 
which is divine in origin. And if one rejects this, then these and similar 
statements cannot be taken at face value.

All this does is prove that the author is citing the Lord trhough his own 
human, and fallible means. God did not write the Bible or else he never 
would have used humans to begin with. Jer 8:8 makes it clear that scribes 
have corrupted the law. God commisions men to write his law, but he doesn't 
strike them down with temporary infallibility in the process.

== "Evangelical seminaries have an agenda so to speak." True enough. 
Evangelical seminaries such as DTS often clearly and specifically identify 
their mission. They will tell you why they believe they exist. Yes, 
Evangelicals do often "wear their biases on their sleeves." That is they 
don't hide it. Personally, I think that it is much more honest than 
institutions which speak on an inclusive intellectual environment where all 
manner of belief systems are welcomed accept for conservative 
Evangelicalism.

But you're begging the question, and much of this is conspiracy theory that 
relies on psychoanalysis. For example, I can enter an Evangelical debate 
forum and start citing scholarly arguments. The audience will, 9 times out 
of 10, draw attention to the fact that the scholars I cite are "liberals" 
and will desist from addressing the arguments. As Niels Lemche said 
recently, the underlying rule seems to be: "do not read Wellhausen; read 
conservative books about Wellhausen. The moment a student with an 
evangelical background enters into a direct conversation with the enemy, he 
or she could be influenced by teh thinking of this enemy, something that can 
only be seen as a menace to the student's continues fundamentalist base. 
Although non-conservative literature may be cited, it is done within a 
conservative framework." (Conservative Scholarship on the Move)

== By the way, I asked you what your personal experience was regarding Bible 
college or seminary. Have you ever sat in on a class. Many seminarys will 
allow you to sit in to see what it is like. DTS does. I did not ask you what 
Bart Ehrman's experience was.

Yes I have, and I have been rejected from two seminaries because I could 
not, in all honestly, sign the required confession of faith. The reason I 
have not provided an answer to yoru request is because the moderator of this 
list sent an email to me (offlist apparently) asking that I do not provide 
such information: "Gentlemen, Please discontinue public discussion of your 
respective training and personal qualifications. While discussion of the 
relative merits of academic training or lack of it is acceptable, I will 
halt this thread if it continues in this vein. We are at the edge of -- if 
not beyond -- ad hominem."

I was simply respecting his request.